Brendon Connelly wrote:Sony have gone ahead and announced a May 2nd, 2014 release date for their sequel to The Amazing Spider-Man. By implication, they must therefore have some kind of production schedule for the film scribbled in their year planner, even if only in pencil. Best guess? Late 2012, I suppose.

This is yet another case of a release date being fixed before there’s even a film. In this case, however, there may already be a screenplay. Early reports on screenwriter James Vanderbilt coming on board the franchise regularly mentioned him penning multiple scripts, and even entwining them to some extent. It remains to be seen how accurate these reports will turn out, but it’s certainly a possibility.

But we shouldn’t forget the fate of Spider-Man 4. Set to reteam Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, that film was given a release date of May 6th, 2011 some months before it was scheduled to enter production. Not that it ever got that far, of course…

So, Sony like to start crowing about their Spider-Man films way ahead of it being necessary, and as it happens, realistic. It doesn’t seem too likely that their second film in the Andrew Garfield era will come off the rails, but why court the embarrassment?

MICHAEL FLEMING wrote:As Sony Pictures Entertainment preps a fourth installment of "Spider-Man" to begin production early next year, the studio has quietly engaged screenwriter James Vanderbilt to pen "Spider-Man 5" and "Spider-Man 6."

Vanderbilt was the first writer on "Spider-Man 4." Director Sam Raimi brought on "Rabbit Hole" playwright David Lindsay-Abaire to rewrite him, and Gary Ross is now rewriting that script. The studio is enthusiastic about where it stands as the picture begins prepping for an early 2010 production start for a May 2011 release.

Raimi didn't embrace all of Vanderbilt's ideas, but execs at Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios have. Vanderbilt has been hired to pen the fifth and sixth movies, which have an interconnected storyline. That's what was originally discussed when Vanderbilt signed on to write "Spider-Man 4," but the idea of shooting a fourth and fifth film back to back with the original cast was scrapped.

Sources said it was unclear whether Raimi, Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst will be back. If they aren't, Vanderbilt's script would be the blueprint for a franchise reboot. After committing to his fourth "Spider-Man" film, Raimi signed on to direct a new franchise based on the massively multiplayer role-playing online computer game "World of Warcraft" for Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros. Maguire and Dunst were locked into the first three pictures and made a new deal for "Spider-Man 4." It's unclear how long they want to continue with the series.

Then again, Raimi was initially doubtful for "Spider-Man 4" because he expected to direct "The Hobbit," but returned after Guillermo del Toro got the job.

Why is Vanderbilt writing when so many variables are undecided?

The most important thing is for Sony to prime the "Spider-Man" pump more frequently. The lapse between films has grown with each blockbuster. The second film came only two years after the first, but it took three years for a third installment, and four years will have passed when "Spider-Man 4" opens in summer 2011.

Sony Pictures toppers Amy Pascal and Michael Lynton may well have a new franchise following last weekend's strong opening of "District 9." And after "Angels and Demons" grossed some $500 million worldwide, they will certainly move forward and extend the "Da Vinci Code" franchise with an adaptation of Dan Brown's fall publishing release, "The Lost Symbol." But "Spider-Man" remains the studio's most important film franchise, and Sony doesn't want to wait half a decade for the next outing.

While the "Spider-Man" movie business is booming, Sony has widenedits footprint on the franchise and become one of the investors in the Broadway musical version of the webslinger; the "Spider-Man, Turn off the Dark" tuner recently experienced a funding hiccup on the way to a planned March premiere.

Although there's been speculation that the show, which will cost upward of $35 million to produce, may not get off the ground, the project is too important to the "Spider-Man" partners to be tabled, sources said. The musical has "The Lion King" director Julie Taymor and songs by U2's Bono and the Edge.

Vanderbilt's most recent script credits are the Sylvain White-directed "The Losers" for Warner Bros. and David Fincher's "Zodiac."

Linda Ge wrote:In the midst of talking up The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in the interview below, Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield seem to hint that the newly tacked-on fourth film in their franchise may not be a Spider-Man movie at all, at least perhaps not a Garfield/Webb one.

Garfield says he’s signed for three films and that a 4th movie is “nothing to do with me.” Sure, I basically took that to mean he leaves the handling of negotiating for future movies to his team and not necessarily that he has nothing to do with the movie, but I found Webb’s comments in conjunction with Garfield’s more interesting.

The director tells the reporter:

We did think about this movie, from the very beginning, these movies as a series of movies, as a trilogy, to be totally frank.

Now, we know Sony is planning on spin-off movies set in the Spidey universe in the vein of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, so could this mean the 4th film is really the first of one of those? Or could it be a brand new take on Spidey, a la Ben Affleck taking over Batman from Christian Bale?

Despite teases to the contrary, at least one person seems to believe that The Amazing Spider-Man 3 isn't going to be all about the Sinister Six. Considering that that man plays Norman Osborn -- better known to most Spider fans as the Green Goblin -- it's possible that he may know more than most about the subject.

Talking to Access Hollywood at the Toronto International Film Festival, Chris Cooper called his appearance in next year's Amazing Spider-Man 2 "an introduction to Norman Osborn" that "apparently leads to better things in [The Amazing] Spider-Man 3."

"I think it's fair to say he's on his last legs. And I don't know if I can say anything more," Cooper explained about Osborn's status in Marc Webb's second Spider-Man flick. That makes sense considering the hints about Osborn from 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man, and the idea that maybe all the genetic manipulation he's funding is for somewhat selfish reasons.

It isn't a surprise that we'll see the Norman Osborn move into bad-guy mode before the end of Webb's trilogy -- he is, after all, likely the most well-known Spider-Man villain, especially for the Gwen Stacy era, that the movies seem to be working within. But just because Cooper is hinting at "better things" for the character, that doesn't necessarily mean that we'll see an appearance from his Goblin alter ego. Could we see Osborn cause mischief without a mask? The break from tradition might be worth it for the chance to see Cooper chew some scenery…

Last edited by TheButcher on Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pamela McClintock wrote:Sony has set release dates for its third and fourth Amazing Spider-Man films, which hit theaters on June 10, 2016, and May 4, 2018, respectively.

The move sets the course for the marquee superhero franchise for the next five years. The threequel had been mentioned, but never a fourth film.

The Amazing-Spider Man 2, which will see Andrew Garfield return in the role of Peter Parker, is currently in production in New York and rolls out in theaters May 2, 2014.

“Spider-Man is our most important, most successful, and most beloved franchise," said Sony Pictures vice chairman Jeff Blake, "so we’re thrilled that we are in a position to lock in these prime release dates over the next five years.”

Amazing Spider-Man 2 is directed by Marc Webb from a screenplay by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner, with a previous draft by James Vanderbilt, and based on the Marvel Comic Book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.

In 2012, Amazing Spider-Man took in over $750 million at the worldwide box office.

The announcement came in the wake of the successful opening of Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures' Man of Steel, which appears to have successfully resurrected the marquee Superman franchise.

Borys Kit wrote:Sony is making good on its promise to expand the Spider-Man universe in a big way, hiring superstar writers Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Jeff Pinkner, Ed Solomon and Drew Goddard to work on a large-scale story that will encompass several films.

The writers will work with Spider-Man producers Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach and The Amazing Spider-Man director Marc Webb to form what Sony is calling a “franchise brain to expand the universe for the brand and to develop a continuous tone and thread throughout the films,” according to Sony’s announcement, which was leaked Thursday night through the website ElectoArrives.com.

Kurtzman and Orci are already working on a third installment of Amazing Spider-Man. Sony has also announced a release date for a fourth Amazing Spider-Man movie for May 4, 2018.

But Kurtzman, Orci and Solomon will write Venom, centered on the black costumed villain that already made his big screen debut in the third Spider-Man movie of the Sam Raimi trillogy, that Kurtzman will direct.

Goddard, meanwhile, will write, with an eye to direct, The Sinister Six, which will focus on Spider-Man’s villains.

“The Spider-Man film franchise is one of our studio’s greatest assets,” said Columbia Pictures president Doug Belgrad. “We are thrilled with the creative team we have assembled to delve more deeply into the world that Marc, Avi and Matt have begun to explore in The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. We believe that Marc, Alex, and Drew have the uniquely exciting visions for how to expand the Spider-Man universe in each of these upcoming films.”

Kurtzman, Orci and Pinkner are already experienced in world and franchise building, with their work on the Star Trek and Transformers movies as well as shows such as Fringe.

Goddard, who worked with Kurtzman, Orci and Pinkner on TV’s Alias, was one of the saviors of World War Z after that movie ran into third act trouble and is now into the Marvel fold with Daredevil, the Netflix series whose pilot he is writing and directing.

Solomon, meanwhile, is best know for his writing Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventures and Men In Black. He was also a writer on this summer’s surprise hit, Now You See Me.

The building of a movie universe seems to be the major trend for studios right now and stems directly from Marvel Studios' success with The Avengers and creating its own shared cinematic universe in which separate movies are connected by events and characters. It mimics the idea that came from the creation of the Marvel Universe in the 1960s comics.

But despite much effort, not all Marvel characters are under its (or parent company Disney's) umbrella, as several key properties remain in the hands of studios who are now taking that concept and running with it as they seek to find new ways to keep their franchises fresh.

Fox recently re-upped with writer-producer Simon Kinberg, who told THR that he was going to be an architect of the studio's expanding X-Men universe. (Fox is also rebooting the Fantastic Four franchise, but it's not clear if those two franchises will ever cross-over)

Even Warner Bros. and DC Entertainment are following the Marvel method and working there way towards a movie featuring DC's superhero team, the Justice League. The Man of Steel sequel has already cast its Batman and Wonder Woman.

Sony's announcement now puts it into the universe-creating game, along with the others.

Alexandra Cheney wrote:That said, Sony has done very well by the “Spider-Man” franchise. Its 2012 reboot, “The Amazing Spider-Man,” starring Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, grossed $752 million worldwide, and the movie series is by far the studio’s most profitable. (Sony Pictures continues to share in the riches of the ongoing James Bond films, but that property is controlled by MGM, so the profit pool is far smaller.)

With a production budget of approximately $200 million, the next “Spider-Man” sequel, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” is due out May 2.

In December, Sony announced Alex Kurtzman will direct “Venom” from a script he’s writing with his longtime collaborator Roberto Orci, as well as Ed Solomon. Drew Goddard will write “The Sinister Six” with an eye to direct. Neither film has been dated, and both are in development at the studio. Marc Webb will direct “The Amazing Spider-Man 3,” securing his spot in helming all three films in the trilogy. The third pic is dated for release in June 2016.

The unexpected move puts an unwelcome spotlight on Sony's web-slinger, once considered the most robust comic book property in Hollywood. But after this summer's disappointing Amazing Spider-Man 2 showed signs of franchise fatigue, the Marvel superhero has moved from the fast track to the back burner. ASM3 has been shifted from June 10, 2016, to an indeterminate date in 2018 (Uncharted, based on the hit PlayStation video game, will take its place). ASM4, which was scheduled to open May 4, 2018, is off the schedule altogether, with Disney quickly scooping up the prime date for an untitled Marvel movie, likely Avengers 3.

There's no shame in $705 million at the box office. But when the film in question is part of the Spider-Man franchise — the fifth-highest-grossing film series and the most successful comic book franchise of all time — that's cause for concern on the Sony lot and for Sony co-chairman Amy Pascal, who has masterminded the franchise since it began with Spider-Man in 2002.

Spidey has been on a downward trajectory ever since the five-film franchise reached its apex in 2007, when Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3 earned $891 million worldwide. Rebooted and rebranded The Amazing Spider-Man in 2012, the property was put in the hands of newbie director Marc Webb, with the studio shaving nearly $30 million off the budget from Raimi's third outing. But the belt-tightening has come at a price. Amazing Spider-Man earned $758 million, while May's follow-up has topped out at a disappointing $201 million domestically, earning a far more heartening $504 million internationally (including $94.4 million in China).

"If I could sum up in one thought the reason [for the slide], it's competition," a Sony source says. "Captain America being out a month before us domestically might have, to some extent, satisfied the pent-up demand for a superhero movie. And there was a lot of competition after we opened as well."

But reviews for Amazing Spider-Man 2 were lukewarm (just 53 percent fresh on Rottentomatoes) and some fans have complained that the "reimagined" Spider-Man movies are too similar to the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man films they rebooted. Webb has taken his share of blame, as have go-to tentpole writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who ended their longtime partnership days before Amazing Spider-Man 2's release. Stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone remain largely unscathed, though Stone won't be back for a third outing (those who saw the movie know why). Jamie Foxx, whose Electro appears to die in AS2, likely won't return either for AS3 — but he might for The Sinister Six, which is set for a Nov. 11, 2016, release.

If competition proved to be Peter Parker's biggest obstacle in 2014, he was poised to face an even more daunting 2016. Within four weeks of ASM3's original June 10 release date, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Captain America 3 and X-Men: Apocalypse all are slated to hit theaters. With that lineup of foes, Sony decided it needed more time to help the superhero reclaim his mojo. (Garfield will be at least 34 years old before his next scheduled appearance in a Spider-Man movie.)

"They are trying to build a global brand, and the property is still quite strong in a lot of the key overseas markets," says Phil Contrino, vp/chief analyst for BoxOffice.com, noting India, the U.K. and China as bright spots. "When it comes to rebooting a franchise, you're never more than one movie away from really breaking out. The potential is still there for this version of Spider-Man."

Privately, Sony admits it is seeking to freshen the brand but has no major overhaul plans, with Webb expected to return to complete the trilogy (as Raimi did with the first three films).

A source said the film fell $100 million below internal predictions. It opened to a solid $91 million but dropped a staggering 61 percent in its second frame (the second-week drop has been seen across the board with the exception of Planet of the Apes). "It's part of how brutal the summer can be," Contrino says. "You open to whatever you open to, and then you just get gutted. Spider-Man opened, and then the following week Neighbors took a chunk out of it. Then Godzilla. Then X-Men. Before you know it, you've run out of gas really quickly."

ANITA BUSCH wrote:EXCLUSIVE:Having pushed the next installment of its Spider-Man franchise out of 2016 and into 2018, Sony Pictures is doing a top-to-bottom revamp of its most important property, insiders say. And that includes a female superhero movie which is being eyed for a 2017 release date, Deadline has learned.

Sinister Six, the next installment from writer-director Drew Goddard, was announced in April and its release date revealed during this year’s Comic-Con. It will bow November 11, 2016. The villain bash is the first of several planned character and story expansions for the Spider-Man franchise which the studio is hanging onto by developing other character spinoffs — much like Fox has done with its successful X-Men franchise. Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach are producing Sinister Six, which revolves around all the villains of Spider-Man converging after the evil Dr. Octopus summons them. There are a lot of different Sinister Six team-ups so it has yet to be revealed which characters might appear, but one possibility is Vulture, Mysterio, Electro, Kraven the Hunter and Sandman. And Goddard is said to be a supreme comic book geek — not that there’s anything wrong with that — who truly understands all the aspects of the Spider-Man universe and its characters and storylines which is key for that movie and the next. “Having Goddard on board places the movie in the hands of someone who has lived in this world,” said one person who knowledge of the property. “If you look at Cabin In The Woods, he did such a phenomenal job on that in redefining and commenting on the genre while also completely embracing it. He’s a fanboy which compliments his talents as a filmmaker.”

After the villains emerge, get ready for the power of the women from the Spider-Man universe. Which characters they will develop is up for speculation, but we know that Lisa Joy (Westworld, Reminiscence) has been hired to script and that again Arad and Tolmach are producing. There are several strong possibilities — Silver Sable, Black Cat, Stunner, Firestar and Spider-Woman, to name a few.

The moves come only two weeks after Marvel Comics announced a gender change for its Thor character during The View — a change in the comic book world that sparked heated debate among fans. Also last month, filmmaker Zack Snyder and Warner Bros. unveiled the first images of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman in the summer 2016 release of Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice.

It was only a matter of time that someone would announce a female superhero movie — and it happens to be Sony who is the first out of the gate. So who are these superhero women possibles? I’m no comic book geek so I’ll do the best I can.

Spider-Woman is known in the comics both as Jessica Drew, then Julia Carpenter, Mattie Franklin, Veranke and also as Charlotte Witter, a fashion designer who is genetically altered by Dr. Octopus. Silver Sable has virtually no superhuman powers but is an adept fighter, skilled in martial arts and sword play who wears a lot of techno gizmo weaponry. Black Cat was introduced in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 as Felicia, Harry Osborn’s assistant, and was played by Felicity Jones; she is also a trained fighter and acrobat. Stunner was a video store clerk who ended up getting a makeover by Dr. Octopus to make her a powerful evil.

This is a wise move for Sony because it’s capitalizing not only on the audience’s changing appetite, but also the studio is digging into its powerful asset base and mining other characters — thereby extending the asset and keeping the rights.

“What other movies we could do was something everyone started talking about when shooting the last movie,” said one person with knowledge of the plans. “With Salt, Wanted and Lucy, there is a huge appetite for this right now.” As for the Spider-Man movie itself, “The one thing you can’t ignore is the fans. There was a rejection going on with having another Spider-Man come out so soon, and you have to listen to the fans in this world. We all took a good look in the mirror and said, we have to try to have to figure it out and revamp it.”

Perri Nemiroff wrote:A video compilation from YouTube user Amazing Spider Man (via CinemaBlend) puts together some of the best bits from the “Something Sinister This Way Comes” disc, beginning with:

“Special projects is where we’re setting up the Sinister Six and all the different crazy technology from Oscorp that’s been developed sort of off the grid and this is our cryogenic – obviously this should be seen only after the movie – but this is our cryogenic head case for Norman Osborn so we can bring him back for the sequel.”That’s when Webb reveals that the cat-like symbol is actually a spear, teasing Kraven the Hunter’s involvement, and also points out that Mysterio is in the mix as well because he’s a personal favorite.

“It’s tricky because we’re not exactly sure if all those people are gonna be in the Sinister Six, or even in the next movie. Like the Mysterio mask, I just think looks really cool. And I love Mysterio, but we haven’t all agreed on it, but I just forced it in because I thought it looked cool.”

Devin Faraci wrote:Everybody knows that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is terrible. Even the people who made it seem to have an idea that the movie is a load. But whose fault is it? For many of us we look at the script and say 'Oh, there's your problem.' Others look at the direction and say, 'Control your tone, guy.' But for Andrew Garfield, who plays Spidey himself, the true villain is Business Man.

I read a lot of the reactions from people and I had to stop because I could feel I was getting away from how I actually felt about it. For me, I read the script that Alex [Kurtzman] and Bob [Orci] wrote, and I genuinely loved it. There was this thread running through it. I think what happened was, through the pre-production, production, and post-production, when you have something that works as a whole, and then you start removing portions of it—because there was even more of it than was in the final cut, and everything was related. Once you start removing things and saying, “No, that doesn’t work,” then the thread is broken, and it’s hard to go with the flow of the story. Certain people at the studio had problems with certain parts of it, and ultimately the studio is the final say in those movies because they’re the tentpoles, so you have to answer to those people.

Having read one of the early drafts I have to disagree with Garfield on the script, but maybe he's talking about an even earlier draft.

It's interesting that he doesn't talk about Avi Arad, who is largely accepted to be the problem with the Spider-Man movies at this point; I'm sure Sony being all freaked out and not knowing what the hell to do with the property didn't help, but everyone I talk to keeps bringing up Arad's name. Again and again.

Garfield spins the whole thing back to positivity by saying that he really enjoyed the work, even if you didn't enjoy seeing his work.

But I’ll tell you this: Talking about the experience as opposed to how it was perceived, I got to work in deep scenes that you don’t usually see in comic book movies, and I got to explore this orphan boy—a lot of which was taken out, and which we’d explored more. It’s interesting to do a postmortem. I’m proud of a lot of it and had a good time, and was a bit taken aback by the response.

Maane Khatchatourian wrote:If you’re worried about the recent influx and potential resulting unwieldiness of shared movie universes, you’re not alone. “Guardians of the Galaxy” writer-director James Gunn is just as concerned.

Gunn took to Facebook to voice his skepticism about studios “trying to grow franchises from non-existent films or middling successes.”

“Listen, I love big (a–) shared universes in movies, as well as huge franchises,” he wrote in a Facebook post titled “Carts Before Horses & Hollywood’s New Love of Shared Universes.” “But I’m a little worried about the numerous shared universes being planned by the studios, without having a strong base film to grow from — or in some cases, NO base film to grow from.”

The director implies that franchises like “Star Wars,” “Iron Man,” “The Dark Knight” and even “Transformers” and “Twilight” are in the clear because they were conceived as single films and only grew into movie series following audience demand.

“But these days studios are trying to grow trees without a strong seed,” he wrote. “Execs and producers and sometimes even directors are focused on the big picture, without perfecting the task directly in front of them — making a great movie.”

With Marvel, Warner Bros. and Universal planning movies a decade in advance, and studios bringing movie worlds into the TV realm, the forest is denser than ever.

“In short, I think this new business model is flawed,” he continued. “I think filmmakers and studios should be prepared for the big picture, but never, ever let it get in the way of making a single great film. Be a little more experimental and see what works as opposed to trying to force success.”

“Guardians of the Galaxy 2,” which follows the surprising success of “Guardians of the Galaxy” — the year’s highest grossing domestic film — hits theaters on May 5, 2017.

The website, Gawker, was one of those sites, and they have been sifting through the information. One file they especially found interesting is titled, "Sony_2012_Comments." It contains complaints from employees of Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE) about the films the company has been producing. Here's a few highlight: "Seems like we just reboot old product instead of coming up with new ideas like the Hunger Games," "There is a general "blah-ness" to the films we produce," "we continue to be saddled with the mundane, formulaic Adam Sandler films," and "Stop making the same, safe, soul-less movies and TV shows." You can see more by clicking here.

There's even an internal discussion about the Spider-Man and Men In Black comic book movie franchises. These complaints appear to be two separate discussions from the same person.

Are you aware that Men In Black 3 may gross $600M at the box office, and yet will lose money for SPE? Shouldn't we question that strategy? Why are some studios making Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Twilight - and we are considering movies like Moneyball, Steve Jobs story, Captain Phillips Story, Evel Knievel story, etc. Are you aware that SPE only has 1 franchise - Spiderman. Yet, it took 5 years to generate a sequel? Spidey 3 was released in summer 2007, #4 in 2012. Don't harry potters come out over 2-3 years?

Are you aware that SPE has only 1 franchise - Spidey? Yet we waited 5 years after Spidey 3 (2007) to release #4? Have you read the SEC annual report? Disney will make $300M on Spidey merchandise this year alone. We won't!

Drew McWeeny wrote:I was fascinated to read that they've also discussed bringing Sam Raimi back. It just feels at this point like Sony's willing to do anything and everything in order to get the franchise back on track, but without any real sense of what it is that makes Spider-Man work in the first place.

DA7E wrote:From a source familiar with the matter, I can report that the deal Sony finally rejected was NOT a Marvel trilogy of movies that Sony would have control over. Instead, it was a co-production deal where Marvel and Sony would split future Spider-Man film costs 60/40 (Marvel paying the larger part) while MARVEL retained control of the Spider-Man creative property with the potential to have him cross-over into Marvel’s Phase films, like an appearance in Captain America: Civil War.

That deal looked dead, then Sony got hacked.

Now, what initially looked like a retaliation attack for The Interview from North Korea might drastically alter what happens to Spider-Man. All the players on the Sony side are now in hot water regarding their very public leaking of films and data at the hands of hackers. Sony’s parent company in Japan are apparently very angry at how this is all playing out. I’ve heard that the atmosphere is that anyone could end up getting fired over this if it begins to cause serious financial damage.

What I’m hearing from my little birds is that Sony, the parent company, views Sony Pictures’s handling of the Spider-Man property as disappointing. Sony wants to be all about “quality” films (actual one-word quote, not air quotes), and the Amazing Spider-Man movies have not been that, nor have the rumors of future films in the franchise. Sony Japan thinks the Marvel deal for Spider-Man is still on the table and they want to renegotiate as a return to quality, the 60/40 split is can be negotiated and Sony Entertainment’s October hard-line stance of wanting creative control is now mostly moot in the eyes of the higher-ups.

Yes, I’m sure someone in corporate has noticed that the production team in charge of the Spider-Verse seems to be the last remaining team unable to squeeze huge profits from it’s Marvel franchise in this iteration, and now letting someone else make the creative decisions whilst reaping some tiny profit just for the luxury of not having to publicly face-plant is looking pretty good.

The "Sony Hack" continues to produce tantalizing behind-the-scenes information regarding Sony's Spider-Man franchise. The latest emails to leak online involve Spider-Man film producer Matt Tolmach, Sony Pictures Entertainment chief Amy Pascal and Columbia Pictures president of production Michael De Luca. In it, Pascal informs De Luca that Tolmach would like to introduce Venom into the Spider-Man franchise, but doesn't think the character could support a film on his own. He would rather introduce Venom in the Sinister Six film. And that film will feature Spidey teaming up with the Sinister Six to take down an even bigger threat. Who could be more dangerous than the Sinister Six? Tolmach would like the main villain to be either Carnage or Venom. If it is the latter, Spider-Man will wear his black suit in the film. He'll remove it when he can't handle being teased about the look by members of the Sinister Six. I kid you not. And of course, whoever finds Spidey's discarded suit will then become ... VENOM!

By the way, kudos to Badass Digest for accurately reporting most of this information near the beginning of October, a week before this leaked email was produced.

In the follow up emal, De Luca explained to Pascal all of the options their Spider-Man franchise had in front of them at that time. He brings up the previously-confirmed deal Marvel Studios offered Sony, which would allow Spider-Man to join the Marvel cinematic universe. To be more specific, Spider-Man would make a cameo in Captain America: Civil War. If the deal was agreed upon, De Luca reports that Marvel would introduce A BRAND NEW SPIDER-MAN. See you later, Andrew Garfield. De Luca seems gung-ho about the cameo. He thinks it could spark new interest in Spidey. Fans would look forward to Spidey's next film without Sony having to make a Sinister Six film just to put fannies in the seats. Either way, De Luca would be happy with whatever direction Marvel president Kevin Feige chose for the Webhead.

That's all based on the deal with Marvel actually happening, but as of right now we know it hasn't, and De Luca addressed that grim possibility as well. Wisely, De Luca proposed another Spider-Man reboot, but this time, it won't spend a lot of its time on Spidey's origin or his parents like The Amazing Spider-Man films did. De Luca also thinks Venom, Carnage and Hobgoblin would be nice addition to a reboot. He especially likes that the Ultimate Venom because his suit isn't formed from an alien symbiote. He'd like the to explore the modern Spider-Man comic book stories written by Michael Bendis, Michael Strascynski and Brain K. Vaughn.

Brazilian website, overtice.com, came across some other great tidbits. In previous emails, Pascal begged Sam Raimi to help her with Spidey but in another email she tells a Sony exec that she doesn't need his help because he went "Joel Schumacher on the third." I'm sure Raimi won't like being compared to the Batman & Robin director. In a separate email, Avi Arad begs Pascal to give him the green light on a Venom movie because the toys and video games based on the character are popular. Lastly, Motion Picture Group President Jeff Robinov warns Pascal not to make a deal with Marvel, but you have to question his advice as he still thinks Stan Lee can create more characters in the Spider-Man universe for Sony.

DA7E wrote:The 60/40 split still looks to be the divide with Sony handling distribution. However, Marvel's not inclined to give Sony creative control over the character, nor planning on honoring the contracts with Sony's Spider-Stars. More poking into the origins of the Aunt May solo film and Female Spider movie rumors revealed that these were actual Sony Picture Entertainment plans that Marvel knew about and severely disliked. Now that Marvel can have the rights to the character back, they plan to wipe the slate with the Amazing Spider-Man universe.

IF the Marvel/Sony deal were to go forward, Andrew Garfield would no longer be Peter Parker and any baggage from existing films, Raimi or Webb, would be non-canonical, Marvel doesn't want any part of those films. The idea is that the Spider-Man romance movie has been played out over five installments, so any new Spider-Man films would focus on the difficulties of being a teenager and a superhero with a romance side-story, not the film's focus. Marvel also thinks that the origin story is well-trodden territory, so any Spider-Man movies under this deal would begin with Peter Parker already leading a dual life. Spider-Man making his debut in Captain America: Civil War is still a distinct possibility and would serve as the character's introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But as of now Spider-Man will NOT be in Civil War. I was told that they have a script nailed down.

Marvel's desire to remove Andrew Garfield from the role was a major point of contention with Sony's Amy Pascal, traditionally a stalwart defender of the talent in her films. However, current events leave her positioned slightly weakened.

JOSH JOHNSON wrote:Kevin Feige is very adamant about one thing: He wants Avi Arad out and Marvel seems to be backing him on this. Should this deal happen, Arad will be nowhere near the Spider-Man movies. However, Pascal and other Sony execs feel he’s a crucial part of the previous Spidey films and feel he needs to stick around.

RogueScribner wrote:That's a shame if Garfield gets recast. He was one of the bright spots of the new films. It's not his fault TPTB couldn't quit meddling.

I didn't see the second one, but I have to agree, I thought he was a pretty good pick for Peter Parker. I guess as long as they cast someone who fits the geeky/nerdy vibe (vs. the generic stud muffins that currently populate Hollywood movies ie Hemsworth Jr, the other guy in the new Terminator and other dudes I can't be bothered to remember).

Josh Wilding wrote:If Spider-Man appears in Captain America: Civil War, Sony will co-finance 25% of the movie. Marvel then co-finances 25% of Spider-Man's next solo film which is scheduled to be released in July 2017. The deal allows Sony to use TWO major Marvel characters and continue the plot from Civil War in regards to how it relates to Spider-Man. Spider-Man would also appear in Avengers: Infinity War - Part 1 in 2018, with another Marvel produced Spider-Man movie following in July 2019.

Sony asked for approval over the costume, script (but only the parts specifically involving Spider-Man), and casting, with said actor required to sign a three-picture deal or more. The way this part of the document is worded makes it sound very much like a collaboration rather than one studio having more control than the other. They do however point out that Kevin Feige must serve as a producer, and if for some reason he leaves Marvel, they would be allowed to select his replacement. They also want Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach to be given executive producer credits, and state that it would be pre-agreed that Drew Goddard both writes and directs the first movie.

"If I were in charge of Spider-Man right now, and money was no object, I would… (Pauses) Well, now you can see why they are having trouble! (Laughs) Not so easy, is it?

"When I was doing Spider-Man the first time, I remember distinctly having thoughts about three movies, each of a different kind. The way the comic-book lines switched, it was Spider-Man, Amazing Spider-Man, Spectacular Spider-Man… there were a number of them.

"So rather than try to persue the same course, or any kind of similar tone, you’d have strikingly different tones. The classic Spider-Man, that would be the top-of-the-line, studio Sam Raimi ones, then the Amazing Spider-Man ones, they’d be done for $75-80 million, and have a rougher, edgier, almost R-rated feel to them – if not R-rated, though I don’t think they could ever bring themselves to do that. Tougher, nastier, a rougher look... shorter movies. I don’t like superhero bloat, personally.

"And these series didn’t have to be consecutive, they could be released concurrently. Then I also thought there should be a Spectacular Spider-Man series, because Spider-Man leaves out a large group of its audience. Little kids are fascinated by Spider-Man by the time they are three, or younger. But when I was a kid, I loved the animated series, so I always thought there should be separate lines to cater for different ages of Spider-Man fans.

"And I’d certainly develop other characters in the Spider-Man universe, which is what they are trying to do, I know. Black Cat deserves her own movie series. As for the superhero genre generally now, I am stunned at its viability, its quality, its longevity, and its ability to grow and deepen. I think they’re great. I was so continually wrong about where superhero movies were going that now I am just an audience member, thrilled to see them continue to improve."

Tatiana Siegel wrote:As often is the case with ousted studio heads, Pascal will launch a major new production venture at the studio. Pascal, whose deal was up in March, will transition to the new venture in May. As part of the deal, she will be a producer on the new Ghostbusters film as well as future Amazing Spider-Man outings (former Columbia Pictures president Matt Tolmach also segued to the role of Spider-Man producer after he exited his post).

Dave McNary & Justin Kroll wrote:Amy Pascal’s departure as co-chair of Sony Pictures Entertainment and chair of its motion picture group leaves Hollywood unsettled over the fate of the studio’s upcoming slate.

The biggest questions at Sony surround the Spider-Man franchise, sequels to the “Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” and the “Cleopatra” project.

It could be several months or more before the post-Pascal priorities of the studio come into focus. And of course much depends on who her successor turns out to be. If Pascal’s top lieutenant, SPE Motion Picture Group president Doug Belgrad, gets the gig, as many expect, there could be minimal changes to the lineup.

Pascal will remain in place through May, at which point she will segue to a producing deal at Sony. Besides Belgrad, other possible replacements from within are former Fox studio chief Tom Rothman, who runs TriStar Pictures; and Columbia Pictures production president Michael De Luca, who ran New Line during the 1990s.

It’s probable that Sony Pictures chairman-CEO Michael Lynton will be averse to tinkering with projects being developed by Rothman and Jeff Robinov’s Studio 8.

The biggest decision for Lynton and Pascal’s successor will be how to handle the Spider-Man franchise. “The Amazing Spider-Man 2″ did respectable business last summer but was hardly the $1 billion blockbuster that Pascal had told folks that she needed it to be.

“Spider-Man” remains a cash cow, but the plans for expanding the Spidey universe through villain spinoffs and the next installment may be re-examined — since Pascal played the leading role pursuing that path. A new regime may take a stronger look at returning to the negotiation table with Marvel Studios over Spidey’s rights.

Sony’s last move on that front came during Comic-Con in July, when the studio dated spinoff “Sinister Six” for Nov. 11, 2016, as the next tentpole in its key property — while moving back “The Amazing Spider-Man 3″ two years to 2018. The idea of bringing in villains is aimed at making Sony a stronger competitor against the likes of Disney/Marvel’s “Avengers” and Warner Bros.’ “Justice League” superheroes in the coming years.

The studio has also slated “Uncharted” for June 10, 2016 — the date previously held by “The Amazing Spider-Man 3” — with Charles Roven and former Marvel Studios chief Avi Arad producing. Based on the PlayStation videogame series, it follows the adventures of treasure hunter Nathan Drake, signaling Sony’s desire to develop an Indiana Jones-style franchise.

The uncertainty will also extend to Sony’s relationship with powerhouse producer Scott Rudin. The Sony hack revealed several nasty emails between Pascal and Rudin; additionally, Pascal decided to put Rudin’s Steve Jobs biopic into turnaround in November, after which Universal quickly picked up the project.

Pascal was still Rudin’s biggest champion at the studio and a big reason he signed a first-look deal with the studio in 2011. The most prominent of his projects include sequels to 2011’s “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” — “The Girl Who Played With Fire” and “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest.”

“Dragon Tattoo” was a critical success and performed respectably at the worldwide box office with $230 million, but no one has been in any hurry to make the next two installments in the series. Pascal’s departure leaves the continuation of that series very much in doubt.

Rudin is also developing a “Little House on the Prairie” movie, but the project does not appear to have gained much traction. That said, Pascal could wind up teaming with Rudin to produce the film once she’s launched her own production company at the studio.

“Cleopatra” also remains a big question mark as the big-budget biopic was probably Pascal’s biggest passion project at Sony. With Angelina Jolie seemingly irked about the leaked emails in which Rudin derided her and Pascal being the film’s biggest supporter, it seems very likely that this movie will move elsewhere.

“Salt 2,” which is not a Rudin project, may also have a murky future with Jolie due to her feelings about the emails.

In terms of projects on the franchise side, “Ghostbusters” and “21 Jump Street” seem safe, but the “Men in Black” series may either be reconsidered or completely abandoned, especially following the much-derided leaked email that suggested creating a spinoff that would combine the “Jump Street” movies with “Men in Black.” Additionally, “Men in Black 3″ was so costly and so panned by critics that the new regime may take a pass on this series altogether.

So he's going to show up (likely) in Captain America: Civil War, and then have his own standalone. Interesting choice for such an important character. I can't imagine them shoehorning his origin into a Cap movie that sounds like it's already pretty dense. So either (a) they'll assume that the Amazing Spider Man (Garfield) film serves as his origin and move on from there, or (b) his role in Civil War will be quite limited, or (c) his standalone film will serve as a prequel origin. Since Sony is still involved here I'd guess they'll do (a) despite the fact that it's a new actor and that his origin story was presumably filmed without any real thought of the MCU and how it fits in.

I have faith in them to make it work, I'm just not sure what they are going to do yet...

So he's going to show up (likely) in Captain America: Civil War, and then have his own standalone. Interesting choice for such an important character. I can't imagine them shoehorning his origin into a Cap movie that sounds like it's already pretty dense. So either (a) they'll assume that the Amazing Spider Man (Garfield) film serves as his origin and move on from there, or (b) his role in Civil War will be quite limited, or (c) his standalone film will serve as a prequel origin. Since Sony is still involved here I'd guess they'll do (a) despite the fact that it's a new actor and that his origin story was presumably filmed without any real thought of the MCU and how it fits in.

I have faith in them to make it work, I'm just not sure what they are going to do yet...

So I didn't read any of those links, nor do I have any clue about Civil War blah blah blah, but I'd guess that Marvel has had a contingency plan/storyline for if and when this partnership happened. So probably not much shoehorning to do right? And Jeebus, please please please not another Spidy origin story. Unless they cast Clint Eastwood as Uncle Ben.

I hope they DO make another origin story, it will serve all the uber-whiney Spidey fans right for the way they have bitched and complained about every little minutia of detail of each and every Spidey movie without any appreciation of all that was done right. fuck em. like spoiled rotten children, they're even worse than X-Men fans the way they complain as if the studio had butchered War and Peace instead of just changing a few things to a comic book story. that said, I think Marvel's run of success is about to get bumpy, and while they should have some sure fire hits with their big tentpole movies like Avengers, especially with Spidey present, and CA:Civil War I just think they are going to find that the general public isn't going to roll with the drastic changes they are making to not only the Avengers cast after their next outing but the Marvel Universe as a whole(fundamentally changing characters) as readily as the comic geek crowd who swallow that stuff up the same way soap opera viewers gobbled up all sorts of ridiculous plot twists and character changes, including the aspect of characters that die....then come back....then maybe die again.....then come back, now that I think about it, comics are the closest things to printed soap operas that exist.

I'm with you guys on the origin story, I don't need to see it again either. It's just that I've really been conceptualizing the MCU stuff and the Sony stuff as completely different universes in my head all this time, so having the Sony spidey (not the old Sony spidey but the new Sony spidey?) show up in Cap's movie (as a new actor) is a little discombobulating to me. I don't want another origin, at all, but i hope it's not too jarring. Probably most people wont care.

I wish Sony and Marvel had gotten on the same page before we had two quicksilvers to deal with...but whatev.

Peven wrote:I hope they DO make another origin story, it will serve all the uber-whiney Spidey fans right for the way they have bitched and complained about every little minutia of detail of each and every Spidey movie without any appreciation of all that was done right. fuck em. like spoiled rotten children, they're even worse than X-Men fans the way they complain as if the studio had butchered War and Peace instead of just changing a few things to a comic book story.

It's neither here nor there, but I'm neither a big Spidey fan nor a big X-Men fan. I don't dislike them, but the main comics I read as a kid were Avengers, Avengers West Coast and Iron Man, so i'm not as emotionally invested in them. But Spidey 3 sucked. So did X3. Two of the most disappointing comic book movies of all time in my book. So there is room for frustration without being "uber-whiney". I saw the first Garfield Spidey film and I thought it was fine. Not great but fine. I didn't watch the second one. Guess I'd better do that now.

Peven wrote:that said, I think Marvel's run of success is about to get bumpy, and while they should have some sure fire hits with their big tentpole movies like Avengers, especially with Spidey present, and CA:Civil War I just think they are going to find that the general public isn't going to roll with the drastic changes they are making to not only the Avengers cast after their next outing but the Marvel Universe as a whole(fundamentally changing characters) as readily as the comic geek crowd who swallow that stuff up the same way soap opera viewers gobbled up all sorts of ridiculous plot twists and character changes,

You could be right about the Avengers line up. But the plan is to have everyone back for Infinity War part 2, as i understand it, so it's not a permanent overhaul (though what happens in the next "phase" is anyone's guess). I keep expecting the other shoe to drop on the Marvel movies, and I expected it for Guardians. I was wrong, so i've given up trying to predict when the "normies" will get tired of comic book fare. I do have to give the American movie audience credit, for once...Marvel made a good, entertaining movie in Guardians with no material connection to the rest of the MCU (at the time)...no real significant cameos, it wasn't a sequel, prequel or reboot....and people went and watched it. That's a good sign for Marvel with these new films and new characters. I'm not sure what you mean about "fundamentally changing characters" but I haven't been as up on the Marvel news over the last couple of months.

Peven wrote:including the aspect of characters that die....then come back....then maybe die again.....then come back, now that I think about it, comics are the closest things to printed soap operas that exist.

8 kajillion bible thumpers in the world seem cool with it. Not to mention Tolkien fans, fans of greek mythology, or anyone who has ever watched TV. Of the major characters in the MCU, who has died and come back other than Coulson? And that was TV. If you're referring toCap/Civil War, I can see your point I suppose, but if he stays gone until Infinity War 2, I will bet that people will be more excited for his return than weirded out or incredulous. So long as it's handled correctly. And so far Marvel really hasn't made a material misstep (business-wise).

edit; spoiler text added to protect the innocent. Read at own risk. Massive comic book spoilers from like 75 years ago, but potential massive future movie spoilers if you aren't familiar with said comic book storyline.

The thing is, I don't want Sony producers anywhere near Marvel. Marvel's achieved so much by doing things their own way, while Sony has run possibly the most popular comic book character in the world into the ground. I was more than happy to see them continue doing that, rather than get their stink all over another studio. If the Marvel movies become bloated messes like The Amazeballs Spider-Man, I will hold Sony personally responsible.

i guess i'm a big Spidey fan. at least i was as a kid, in the sense that i watched the cartoon and the tv show and read a few comic books (as opposed to, say, fantastic four, iron man, captain america, batman, superman, the flash, aquaman, the avengers, the hulk, thor, etc etc etc all of whom i never read a single comic book), and played with some of the toys. i don't care what they change since i never read enough comic books to know what is or isn't accurate to the books... i know some people complained about the organic webshooters (which i thought was a good idea since he's SPIDER-man, not INVENTOR-man) and thought tobey maguire's performance was fine, even if it wasn't wisecracking enough for some (i think my first exposure to spiderman was on the Electric Company, and he didn't even talk, so the idea of a talking spiderman still takes me some getting used to). in fact, there's very little i didn't like about the sam raimi spiderman films, well until #3 which we all know was due to the studio's interference. as for the garfield spidermans, his performance is fine and so is emma stone's, but those films SUCKED. no joy, no fun, overwrought teenage angst mixed with over-the-top FX and incomprehensible plotting which was apparently building up to something that we'll never see now, because it sucked so much they've basically tanked the franchise again.

so yeah, i don't really care how "faithful" the films are to the comic books i didn't read or the cartoons and tv shows i did watch, but i do care if the films suck or not. they can keep or change whatever they want as far as i'm concerned, as long as it makes for a good movie. i guess that makes me whiney, oh well. i can't see another way to do a spidey origin story and make it entertaining and interesting when we've already seen it TWICE now in the last 15 years. i'd rather just see spiderman as a guy who's already been at the job a while in a story that doesn't feel the need to explain his origins, like what DC seems to be doing with the Batfleck batman (another character who doesn't need another origin story film).

if Spidey makes his first appearance in CA:Civil War with a solo movie to follow, then there should be no need for an origin story, that would be the best way for them to integrate him into the existing MCU, imho

Asa Butterfield was really good in Ender's Game. whatever problems you may or may not have with the film (i liked it myself), his performance isn't one of them. the only question is if he is as good at wisecracking and being awkward as PP, as he was at brooding and being all serious as Ender.